Replace Nikki Haley With ... No One!

Remember when Mike Rogers and other cosponsors (including my representative, Mr. Massie) introduced this bill to the House in January of 2017?

Well, I argue that it's time to act on this bill and pass it.

In short, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act aims to:

This bill repeals the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and other specified related laws.

The bill requires: (1) the President to terminate U.S. membership in the United Nations (U.N.), including any organ, specialized agency, commission,
or other formally affiliated body; and (2) closure of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations.

The bill prohibits: (1) the authorization of funds for the U.S. assessed or voluntary contribution to the U.N., (2) the authorization of funds for any
U.S. contribution to any U.N. military or peacekeeping operation, (3) the expenditure of funds to support the participation of U.S. Armed Forces as
part of any U.N. military or peacekeeping operation, (4) U.S. Armed Forces from serving under U.N. command, and (5) diplomatic immunity for U.N.
officers or employees.

That is the official summary, and I agree with it 100%.

So what do the rest of you think--are we at a good place to sever ties with the U.N.? I know that many of you think that the U.N. still has a purpose
in the world, but I think that it is a burden to true progress and binds the hands of sovereign nations.

I'm interested in your thoughts on this.

Well, if I'm being honest, I'm interested in SOME of your thoughts on this--please make your comments constructive.

Remember when Mike Rogers and other cosponsors (including my representative, Mr. Massie) introduced this bill to the House in January of 2017?

Well, I argue that it's time to act on this bill and pass it.

In short, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act aims to:

This bill repeals the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and other specified related laws.

The bill requires: (1) the President to terminate U.S. membership in the United Nations (U.N.), including any organ, specialized agency, commission,
or other formally affiliated body; and (2) closure of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations.

The bill prohibits: (1) the authorization of funds for the U.S. assessed or voluntary contribution to the U.N., (2) the authorization of funds for any
U.S. contribution to any U.N. military or peacekeeping operation, (3) the expenditure of funds to support the participation of U.S. Armed Forces as
part of any U.N. military or peacekeeping operation, (4) U.S. Armed Forces from serving under U.N. command, and (5) diplomatic immunity for U.N.
officers or employees.

That is the official summary, and I agree with it 100%.

So what do the rest of you think--are we at a good place to sever ties with the U.N.? I know that many of you think that the U.N. still has a purpose
in the world, but I think that it is a burden to true progress and binds the hands of sovereign nations.

I'm interested in your thoughts on this.

Well, if I'm being honest, I'm interested in SOME of your thoughts on this--please make your comments constructive.

Let's pass this bill!

Are you in the John Birch Society?

And if you are, should you maybe disclose that in a OP like this?

And if you say you are not, should I believe you?

Bonus question: Do the Koch brothers provide you any money?

I ask all this because this is just libertarian trash thinking. Yes, the UN absolutely has a place in the world still, it's just too bad that people
like you and your president are making the world laugh at us and diminishing our reputation with trash crap like this.

Acting like this is a great idea that just came up in 2017 is disingenuous at best. This has been a Koch brothers goal since the 1980s!

Of course we got to put someone in there. It gives us an international voice. It would be dumb to not have a vote and to not have a place to speak
out on international isssues. or...we could put our heads in the sand and hide, I guess. LOL

Ostensibly invited to the White House to discuss prison reform, West wore a red “Make America Great Again” cap as he sat across from the
president at the Resolute Desk, surrounded by reporters and photographers. Trump, whose African American supporters are few and far between, boasted:
“Kanye’s been a friend of mine for a long time.”

West launched into an impassioned, zigzagging stream of consciousness that skipped through race relations, tax breaks, criminal justice and mental
health, including the most peculiar justification yet of why he supports the president.

... snip ...

Rising to his feet with phone in hand as cameras clicked and Trump looked on, he ranted: “What I need Saturday Night Live to improve on and what I
need the liberals to improve on is, if he don’t look good, we don’t look good. This is our president. He has to be the freshest, the flyest, the
flyest planes, the best factories.”

To that end, he made the surprise proposal of a hydrogen-powered replacement for Air Force One called the “iPlane 1”

We have plenty of other relationships with other country such as NATO. The U.N is only around to erode sovereignty and push their draconian agendas.
They have zero benefit for the average American citizen.

I think that the US is the only financial glue holding the house of cards together, and that if we left, it would have no choice but to dissolve...or
other member countries would have to step up to the plate and quit relying on Daddy America to pay its bills.

And therein lies the actual problem for the UN--without the US, it's an unaffordable club of elitists hell-bent (as an organization) on globalizing
everything and punishing successful countries in order to artificially elevate unsuccessful ones.

That mentality goes against all basic laws of nature. I know that it sounds harsh, but reality often is.

a reply to: SlapMonkey
The bill's title is misleading, because American soverereignty hasn't been lost.
The U.N. remains a voluntary organisation, and doesn't have the legal or practical power to impose itself on individual members. Has the U.K. obeyed
instructions to "release" Assange? No, not at all. Has Israel withdrawn to the borders existing in 1967? No, not at all.
The United Nations is a monster without any teeth, which makes it a harmless monster.

Generally speaking, what you say is true. But, in being a toothless monster, it's still a monster, and an very expensive one to keep fed and caged.
Plus, here in America, it's an expensive, toothless, caged monster needlessly inhabiting our soil.

Why keep a monster that is harmless and doesn't scare anyone into 'being better countries?'

You bring up Israel, and that whole Israel-Palestine issue was basically created by the U.N.--without it, the countries would have been able to figure
it all out on their own, even if it came to blows (which it has more than once, obviously). In that instance, it's the UN that is perpetuating the
issue instead of being an arbitrator in fixing it.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.